08-06-2024, 01:16 PM
"I don't want justification, I just want a picture" said Mr. Tentakulus.
Dear Tentakulus,
You said "I don't want justification, I just want a picture", but this type of sentence may have value at most in a bar conversation at a drinking table, not in a scientific discussion. Please let's stop acting like children.
In the photographs you shared, the word structures you claim do not contain the quadrilateral or pentagram structures, and there are not even three identical words written side by side. It is very thought-provoking and sad that you read different words thinking they are the same word. I think any careful researcher who looks at the photographs of the texts you shared can understand this. Therefore, you should not mislead people and primarily yourself here.
Even though you have not been able to provide evidence to refute my claim, you still suggesting that I re-present the evidence in the format you want, by mistaking a photo containing similar words that look like makaroni in a non-existent IE structure.
Therefore, there is a situation like this: I showed two different structural overlaps and presented my evidence. Moreover, the artificial intelligence also wrote the same things differently and mentioned additional evidence. So, I now have two units of structural matches. But you seem to have nothing more than an unproven claim, inconsistent and repeated over and over again, with a zero-value photo that does not include quadruple and quintuple-word repetitions. I can do nothing but suggest that you turn this claim into an article, as I said, and submit it to the service of Indo-European linguistics.
Some people keep writing the same things without understanding the answers, demanding, and continuing to be exhausting. It would be more beneficial for our work to get the opinions of linguists and scientists who can evaluate the presented evidence and understand what it means.
Evidence may not always be in the format you envision or appear in the order you desire. However, there are formats of scientific evidence, and I have presented some of them here. The AI also mentioned other evidence in addition to what I discussed and shared here.
Today, hundreds of thousands of manuscripts have not been digitally scanned and published, but we learn about their existence and the details within them from linguists and historians who have worked on these texts for many years.
Nevertheless, it is possible to find the visuals and ask someone who knows the Arabic alphabet to publish these details as photos. I am not that person, but when the right researchers are found, I hope we can fulfill Mr. Tentakulus' additional request as well.
In any case, you should know that evidence is varied, and in our work, we have presented multiple systematic overlaps and hundreds of words matching dozens of sentences, and the words in question are clearly shown in well-known dictionaries. Additionally, some full pages of the VM texts have been presented at an academic level (at international linguistics and history symposiums) with evidence to linguists for criticism. So far, I have not received a single simple criticism from linguists specializing in the Old Turkish language except for congratulatory messages.
Even if we have not received a single congratulatory message addressed to us on the Voynich-ninja page, I can understand that. It is difficult to break the entrenched wrong thoughts in the human mind, and others have expressed this before me. However, I expect the criticisms you will bring to my comments and shares on this page to not exceed the limits of logic and the customary scientific level in academic practices.
Thus, criticisms should not be advanced to satisfy personal fantasies, thoughts, or expectations. Criticisms should remain within the framework of linguistics and be consistent and detached from personal expectations. I expect criticisms at this level, but I prefer you not to direct insufficiently thought-out and inconsistent or scientifically unconventional criticisms or questions to me here. Because these can be confusing for the readers and exhausting for me. Please understand this preference of mine and try to guide scientific comparisons with scientific evidence and findings, not with personal opinions, or unproven claims, or unproven illustrative visuals. While doing this, only refer to academic-level information and articles. There are many other topics here on this web page where you can share your personal opinions. If we are going to discuss our VM-Turkish study findings here, let's try to stay within the field of linguistics, please.
Regards,
Dear Tentakulus,
You said "I don't want justification, I just want a picture", but this type of sentence may have value at most in a bar conversation at a drinking table, not in a scientific discussion. Please let's stop acting like children.
In the photographs you shared, the word structures you claim do not contain the quadrilateral or pentagram structures, and there are not even three identical words written side by side. It is very thought-provoking and sad that you read different words thinking they are the same word. I think any careful researcher who looks at the photographs of the texts you shared can understand this. Therefore, you should not mislead people and primarily yourself here.
Even though you have not been able to provide evidence to refute my claim, you still suggesting that I re-present the evidence in the format you want, by mistaking a photo containing similar words that look like makaroni in a non-existent IE structure.
Therefore, there is a situation like this: I showed two different structural overlaps and presented my evidence. Moreover, the artificial intelligence also wrote the same things differently and mentioned additional evidence. So, I now have two units of structural matches. But you seem to have nothing more than an unproven claim, inconsistent and repeated over and over again, with a zero-value photo that does not include quadruple and quintuple-word repetitions. I can do nothing but suggest that you turn this claim into an article, as I said, and submit it to the service of Indo-European linguistics.
Some people keep writing the same things without understanding the answers, demanding, and continuing to be exhausting. It would be more beneficial for our work to get the opinions of linguists and scientists who can evaluate the presented evidence and understand what it means.
Evidence may not always be in the format you envision or appear in the order you desire. However, there are formats of scientific evidence, and I have presented some of them here. The AI also mentioned other evidence in addition to what I discussed and shared here.
Today, hundreds of thousands of manuscripts have not been digitally scanned and published, but we learn about their existence and the details within them from linguists and historians who have worked on these texts for many years.
Nevertheless, it is possible to find the visuals and ask someone who knows the Arabic alphabet to publish these details as photos. I am not that person, but when the right researchers are found, I hope we can fulfill Mr. Tentakulus' additional request as well.
In any case, you should know that evidence is varied, and in our work, we have presented multiple systematic overlaps and hundreds of words matching dozens of sentences, and the words in question are clearly shown in well-known dictionaries. Additionally, some full pages of the VM texts have been presented at an academic level (at international linguistics and history symposiums) with evidence to linguists for criticism. So far, I have not received a single simple criticism from linguists specializing in the Old Turkish language except for congratulatory messages.
Even if we have not received a single congratulatory message addressed to us on the Voynich-ninja page, I can understand that. It is difficult to break the entrenched wrong thoughts in the human mind, and others have expressed this before me. However, I expect the criticisms you will bring to my comments and shares on this page to not exceed the limits of logic and the customary scientific level in academic practices.
Thus, criticisms should not be advanced to satisfy personal fantasies, thoughts, or expectations. Criticisms should remain within the framework of linguistics and be consistent and detached from personal expectations. I expect criticisms at this level, but I prefer you not to direct insufficiently thought-out and inconsistent or scientifically unconventional criticisms or questions to me here. Because these can be confusing for the readers and exhausting for me. Please understand this preference of mine and try to guide scientific comparisons with scientific evidence and findings, not with personal opinions, or unproven claims, or unproven illustrative visuals. While doing this, only refer to academic-level information and articles. There are many other topics here on this web page where you can share your personal opinions. If we are going to discuss our VM-Turkish study findings here, let's try to stay within the field of linguistics, please.
Regards,